testtest

RFK Jr.

Bassbob said:
Even if that's true the optics are pretty bad. There is 3 months before the election, ballots aren't printed yet and getting someone on the ballot I can understand about rules, but taking someone off who isn't running ? There really can only be one reason they would do that.
Click to expand...

So, laws are laws. If the law says the ballots are fixed after X date, that’s how it is.

What you want is a special exception…

Tell me; if it was the other way around—if he endorsed Harris—would you be OK with the exception?
 
HansGruber said:
So, laws are laws. If the law says the ballots are fixed after X date, that’s how it is.

What you want is a special exception…

Tell me; if it was the other way around—if he endorsed Harris—would you be OK with the exception?
Click to expand...
I think in either case the optics are bad. Especially since the AGs in question are democrats. It gives the perception of cheating. They're just asking for more of the shite we had after last election. But maybe it's like Tarantino said the other day. The point is to win at all costs.
And it's stupid to put someone's name on a ballot that isn't running when they haven't printed any ballots yet. If it's the law, they need to change it. I'm going to guess that it isn't the law, but I could be wrong.
 
Bassbob said:
I think in either case the optics are bad. Especially since the AGs in question are democrats. It gives the perception of cheating. They're just asking for more of the shite we had after last election. But maybe it's like Tarantino said the other day. The point is to win at all costs.
And it's stupid to put someone's name on a ballot that isn't running when they haven't printed any ballots yet. If it's the law, they need to change it. I'm going to guess that it isn't the law, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Ballots have been cast and counted for Biden/harris for months.. oops.. redoing them for harris/walz for weeks ..
 
Debating / discussing who is on the ballot, well, there is Jack Smith reinventing charges again on Prez Trump, so it's clear the lawfare will never end, even if Mr Trump were to win.
 
Bassbob said:
I think in either case the optics are bad. Especially since the AGs in question are democrats. It gives the perception of cheating. They're just asking for more of the shite we had after last election. But maybe it's like Tarantino said the other day. The point is to win at all costs.
And it's stupid to put someone's name on a ballot that isn't running when they haven't printed any ballots yet. If it's the law, they need to change it. I'm going to guess that it isn't the law, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Again—

Would you be in favor of them changing the ballot if it was the other way?

Would you even give a solitary f*** about the “optics” if that was the case?

I gotta say, I’d be awfully surprised if you did.
 
1724889887674.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top